Categories
Andy Burnham United Kingdom

When September comes: Rosebank and Jackdaw etc

“Speaking to BBC Radio 5Live on Friday [15th August], he suggested approving the two plans could help “speed up the energy transition”.

Although he did not name the sites, Burnham said: “We won’t be able to stop using oil and gas for some time, that’s just a fact. The question is whether we can accelerate use of it so that we pay for the transition, and one thing helps the other… whether that extraction can be the bridge to the clean energy future we need, and bring it forward. It’s about a pragmatic approach to both of those.””

https://observer.co.uk/news/national/article/north-sea-fossil-fuels-could-help-bridge-the-gap-to-clean-energy-says-burnham

When (1) Prime Minister Burnham gives the approval to one (or both) of Rosebank and Jackdaw, his team will do its best to manage perceptions, and anger.  The announcement itself will presumably be sandwiched between two ‘nice’ and ‘cuddly’ announcements. Probably one to do with animal welfare (something about maximum temperatures for battery farms, with maybe price controls on what vets can charge for pet care? idk – spitballing here), the other to do with heating bills and insulation.   All this will be phrased as “sensible”, “pragmatic” “achievable” etc.

My guess is that the announcement itself will come at Labour Party conference, so additional pressure can be placed on any MPs who might otherwise be more tempted to run their mouths.  This is slightly dependent on temperatures, of course – Burnham doesn’t want to be announcing these project approvals during another heatwave.  Burnham will make sure that when he makes the announcement he is flanked by a couple of photogenic young apprentices (ideally women of colour) who will be getting Job and Training on one of those projects.

What will happen next?

Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband and Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero Miatta Fahnbulleh  will be endlessly scrutinised for any gritting of teeth during their support for this ‘difficult but ultimately sensible’ decision.

We will be flooded with the pundit class telling us how  important to be “adult”, to “understand how politics works” etc.  Much as they did when Peter Mandelson was announced as UK ambassador to the US. 

The Telegraph and the Heil will have several full-page articles about how reality is impinging on Burnham, but while Miliband is around, there is still Peril.

The business lobbies pushing for this will I suspect be relatively low-key, not wanting to draw too much attention to their power. The gloating can be done behind closed doors, away from the prying eyes of the riff-raff.

The Climate Change Committee will put out some schrodinger’s cat of an announcement, carefully crafted so it can be read in any way that is useful to government, opposition etc.

The Chief Scientific Advisor will be unavailable for comment – either on holiday or being held at a secret location until the heat dies down a bit.

There will be denunciatory press releases and stunts (a “die-in” or three?) by a fairly broad coalition of green groups and groupuscules.  Perhaps some Grim Reapers, “outside the Treasury, carrying empty harvest baskets and hessian sacks marked “WHEAT – FAILED”, “POTATOES – FAILED” and “CROPS – FAILED”, against a backdrop of drought-scorched crops.” (as per Edie, 2026).

The fact that Saint Andy was happy to get some nice publicity when signing the Fossil-Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty with Massive Attack and an academic will be dredged up (On June 5, 2025, since you ask)

(Source)

Video on Instagram here

The Compass outfit, which claims to bring red and green together, will once again be revealed as, well, pointless.

Green Party membership will get a noticeable bump, as people realise that they have met the new boss and he is the same spineless meat-puppet as the old boss, only with “better comms.”

The Conservatives and Reform will not punch the bruise too hard, I think.  Ms Badenoch will release some screed – “We congratulate him for finally facing down the eco-loons who most days run his party”. 

Reform will say that this is not enough, however, the Government should also be outlawing onshore wind and solar.

And the rest of us?  We will take the blow with that same hollow-eyed, hollow-stomached sense of fear, despair and powerless that we’ve been coping with (or not coping with) for years or decades.

Once again we will learn that “pragmatic” means cowardice.  As per the words of a brave anti-Nazi German called Manfred (2)

 “… the word praktisch had been a two-syllable club he’d been beaten with by fellow students and teachers and businessmen and clergy all through the nightmare years. “Stop being such a god-damned idealist! Be practical!” “Practical means I know right from wrong but I’m too fucking scared to do what’s right so I commit crimes or permit crimes and I say I’m only being practical. Practical means coward. Practical frequently means stupid. Someone is too goddamn dumb to realize the consequences of what he’s doing and he hides under practical. It also means corrupt: I know what I ought to do but I’m being paid to do something different so I call it practical. Practical is an umbrella for everything lousy people do.”

(Quote from Brendan Phibbs amazing book The Other Side of Time: a Combat Surgeon in World War II Little Brown & Co, New York (1987)

And, somewhere, a tool-maker’s son will have some kind of wry smile…

But if the Labour party wanted naked pragmatism, frankly it could have stuck with Keir Starmer. It looks to Andy Burnham for something more: the courage to face up to difficult questions but also the political skills to sell difficult answers, and the emotional intelligence to manage the fallout. As this unnaturally hot summer fades into what may be an equally unnaturally wet autumn, we’ll soon know whether he can actually deliver.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/aug/18/andy-burnham-climate-security-net-zero-jobs

Further watching

Will Burnham back North Sea drilling plans? | News UK Video News | Sky News 


Further reading

Will Andy Burnham allow North Sea oil and gas drilling as Rosebank decision looms? | The Independent 

Rosebank consultation concludes as groups warn PM against more drilling – edie 

Footnotes

  1. Well, “if” – I hope he surprises me, obviously, but it would be a surprise.
  2. Manfred had got out before the war. In 1944 he had volunteered to be parachuted behind German lines in a soldier’s uniform with the aim of gathering whatever intelligence he could, get captured by advancing Allied soldiers, and then spill the beans. The Gestapo etc knew about this – it was fantastically dangerous.
Categories
Iceland

August 18, 2019 – Plaque for a dead glacier

Seven years ago, on this day, August 18th, 2019,

“Iceland’s Okjokull glacier commemorated with plaque”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49345912

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 412ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that there had been warnings about shrinking glaciers and rising sea levels since the 1950s Those warnings had become more emphatic with each passing year as the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 climbed. 

The specific context was Glenn Albeicht had invented the word solastalgia, which seems to fit here.

What I think we can learn from this is that humans are capable of mourning, not just the passing of their own species or other sentient species, but also of beautiful, long-lasting aspects of this wonderful planet that we are trashing because we know what’s at stake. We know that we have not been custodians or guardians. We have not obeyed the invocations to be careful, to be carers. 

What happened next We weaponized and encouraged our worst impulses, and that is having consequences. We are in the Fafocene,

xxx

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 18, 1975 – it’s gonna get hotter, not cooler, say scientists

August 18, 1991- Business Council of Australia says “fuck you, future generations,” rejects energy efficiency measures

August 18, 1996, Ex-CSIRO #climate boss shows he has lost the plot

August 18, 1997 – MENSA turns out to be dumb as a rock.

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol

August 18, 2002 – David Kemp is delusional

Twenty-four years ago, on this day, August 17th, 2002,

“In 2002, for example, Federal Environment Minister, David Kemp boasted – without foundation – that ‘increasingly the international community recognises that although we have taken the view that it is not in Australia’s national interests to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, we are actually at the forefront of nations that are taking the responsible attitude,’ adding, ‘We have to be a good international citizen’: “ABC,

‘Minister Defends Position on Greenhouse Gas Emissions’, Insiders, 18 August 2002

http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2002/s651631.htm

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 374ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the climate issue was flaring up again, in part because George W. Bush, appointed by the Supreme Court as President of the United States, (despite losing the popular vote, and probably having lost Florida) in 2000 had pulled the United States out of the negotiations for the Kyoto Protocol, and crucially, Australia had followed suit in June 2002 two months before Kemp says what Kemp says,

The specific context

On September 10 2001 George W. Bush had apparently asked John Howard whether he was going to back the US or the rest of the world on carbon dioxide and Kyoto. Howard had, of course, said, “I’m backing the US.” Anyway, here we see David Kemp, who had replaced Robert Hill as Environment Minister. spouting utter bilge. Surely, as an intelligent man, he must have known that it was bilge.

What I think we can learn from this is that intelligent people are entirely capable of self-delusion, and ambitious, obedient intelligent people are capable of convincing themselves to believe whatever they need to believe to get through the day. 

What happened next Kemp kept spouting this stuff, and they kept working with the Americans on so-called technology partnerships, including spectacularly the AP six, which was an attempted spoiler operation against the Kyoto Protocol and meanwhile, the emissions climbed, the concentration climbed, the consequences became readily and speedily apparent, and here we are.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 18, 1975 – it’s gonna get hotter, not cooler, say scientists

August 18, 1991- Business Council of Australia says “fuck you, future generations,” rejects energy efficiency measures

August 18, 1996, Ex-CSIRO #climate boss shows he has lost the plot

August 18, 1997 – MENSA turns out to be dumb as a rock.

Categories
Propaganda

Daily Mail propaganda technique: personalisation

There’s another dreadful Daily Mail (well, Mail on Sunday) article knocking around, this one by a guy called Ross Clark.

There is the usual absolute silence on climate science, and the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

There are a bunch of really interesting techniques Clark uses, but I don’t have time or inclination to examine them all now. The one that leaps out at me is personalisation…

So, I’ve made a new tile to add to the Daily Mail propaganda techniques…

Categories
Politics

Face-eating leopard develops a taste for white meat

For those of you who don’t know, there is an internet meme called the Face Eating Leopard.

From a tweet by Adrian Bott (@cavalorn) in October 2015: “‘I never thought leopards would eat MY face,’ sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People’s Faces Party.”

You see it used especially around people who voted for Trump – once, twice, thrice – and are now facing the deportation of a spouse. The subtext is ‘how could they be so stupid/selfish’ and ‘karma is a bitch’.

Let’s step back a bit. All through the 80s, 90s and so on, a certain type of comfortable asshole cheered while the state functionaries dished out violence – sometimes fast (Miners’ Strike) but usually “slow” (rule-changes, casualisation etc etc) to the lower orders, imposing so-called ‘market discipline’ on them. Comfortable professionals who didn’t make common cause with people who they considered their inferiors, never dreaming that they would ever be on the receiving end.

But let’s step back further than the ‘civilised’ West and current concerns for AI/LLMs taking jobs from nice responsible middle-class people. Let’s look at the climate, the ultimate leopard.

All through the 90s, 2000s, 2010s there were a whole bunch of people watching while others put their liberty and lives on the line over climate. Silly hippies, hysterical, get a job etc etc etc.

Why? Because they assumed that IF climate change was a thing then “we could adapt.” Adapt was code for “well, I have air-conditioning, and if you don’t you’re one of the poors, a loser who can’t keep up, who deserves what they get.”

All that time, they assumed that they were ‘safe’ – because they spoke English, were white, had a degree and a Proper Job, and some savings and all the rest of it. If the leopard was real, it would never eat THEIR face.

And here we are. The leopard is growling in the next room, scratching the door so loud it’s like that Edgar Allen Poe story about the Tell-tale Heart.

The leopard, akin to the beast we’ve been poking with a sharp stick, is hungry and the leopard really really does not care who he eats next.

If we wanted everything to stay the same, everything had to change. But people were too smug, too arrogant and complacent to see that, thinking the leopard would never develop a taste for white meat.

Well, it has. Nom nom nom.

Categories
Australia

August 17, 1970 – letter about pollution (inc carbon dioxide) and power in Sydney Morning Herald

Fifty six years ago, on this day, August 17th, 1970, scientist Charles Munro-Watson had a letter in the Sydney Morning Herald: “one does not know the long-term ecological effects of the addition of carbon dioxide to our atmosphere.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 325ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that environmental issues and questions over energy production, especially, had become quite live in the late 60s, even before the first oil shock of 1973. Questions around carbon dioxide build up were also being asked. And here we see a letter from a prominent Australian scientist of the time to the Australian newspaper back when it was still right wing and conservative, but before it totally jumped the shark.

Actually, jumping the shark is the wrong usage, because it applied to Happy Days, which had moments of grace and usefulness, which I don’t really think the Australian ever had. 

What I think we can learn from this is that Munro was a mensch. Munro also was bezzies with Stuart Bailey, a physicist at University of Sydney, who knew all about carbon dioxide build up, and as the author of the Frontiers in Science cartoons, had been banging on about it in 1965, 1968-69 and so forth. 

What happened next Munro remained very active on questions around what sources of energy Australia should be investigating and exploiting, and he was very much in favour of renewables, especially solar. He died in 1991. 

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 17, 1982 – Crispin Tickell sounds the alarm bell

August 17, 1988 – “The Greening of Congress

August 17, 1989 – Space shields to save the earth…

August 17, 1997 – Paper etc industries want “greenhouse minister”

August 17, 1998 – Emissions Trading considered (again)

August 17, 2002 – Pacific states urge Australia to sign Kyoto Protocol

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

August 17, 2006 – Howard attacks State government plans to introduce a carbon trading scheme.

Twenty years ago, on this day, August 17th, 2006,

Prime Minister John Howard has attacked state government plans to introduce a carbon trading scheme, claiming it will cripple the resource industry and cause massive price increases for petrol, gas and electricity. He told Parliament yesterday that according to a recent Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics report, a 50 per cent cut in Australian emissions by 2050 ”would lead to a 10 per cent fall in in GDP, a 20 per cent fall in real wages, a carbon price equivalent to doubling of petrol prices and a staggering 600 per cent rise in electricity and gas prices.” [Pearse 2007 is SCATHING on this]

 Beeby, R. 2006. Howard attacks carbon trading scheme. Canberra Times, 17 August, p.3.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 382ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that there had been various efforts to get a federal carbon tax, and then an emissions trading scheme in Australia. Two emissions trading scheme proposals had gone before John Howard’s cabinet. In 2000 Nick Minchin had killed it off. In 2003 John Howard had killed it off. Insert links

The specific context was that from early 2006 onwards, and especially late 2006 the pressure for climate action became unavoidable, and here we see just before the issue breaks through in September, John Howard trying to attack state governments for being proactive on an issue that he wants to stay dead and buried.

What I think we can learn from this is that 10 years is a long time to be Prime Minister, and Howard had become more isolated and doctrinaire and had lost his feel for issues and simply couldn’t change his ways. And when he tried in 2007 it convinced absolutely nobody.

What happened next The idea of an emissions trading scheme didn’t lie down and die, and in fact, Kevin Rudd, as leader of the opposition, appointed Ross Garnaut to look into an emissions trading scheme, and this then morphed into a federal scheme. Garnaut was then sidelined because he was unwilling to sign off on enormous giveaways to big business, which Rudd felt was wise, and the rest is history. 

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 17, 1982 – Crispin Tickell sounds the alarm bell

August 17, 1988 – “The Greening of Congress

August 17, 1989 – Space shields to save the earth…

August 17, 1997 – Paper etc industries want “greenhouse minister”

August 17, 1998 – Emissions Trading considered (again)

August 17, 2002 – Pacific states urge Australia to sign Kyoto Protocol

Categories
Activism United Kingdom

August 16, 2001 – Rising Tide has plenty of ideas

Twenty five years ago, on this day, August 16th, 2001,

Fifty ideas for actions on climate change

In May and June 2001, the Rising Tide Climate Chaos Tour visited 12 cities in Britain. Some 300 people came to the Tour. In the last session of each gig people broke into small groups and brainstormed ideas for action. This is a list taken from their ideas.

This list proves that no one can argue that there’s nothing we can do about climate change. Our only problem now is choosing what to do- and when has that ever been an excuse for not doing anything?!

https://risingtide.org.uk/resources/factsheets/fiftyideas

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 371ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that a bunch of mostly UK, but not exclusively climate activists had been trying to get people concerned about climate change, they had been there at the first COP in Berlin, and they had especially been there at the sixth COP at The Hague in the Netherlands, in those innocent pre 911 days when it was possible, given lax security to in fact storm the stage, (compare with XR storming the stage with Burnham in early 2019). And rising tide was trying to build a movement, and they failed, not through lack of effort or intelligence, but just it didn’t quite work out for them, and here we see they had plenty of ideals. 

The specific context was here they (and I was not among them) desperately trying to get enough people involved/interested in 200.

What I think we can learn from this is issue entrepreneurs have to be smart, persistent, and above all lucky, And part of the luck is the times suiting you and the times seem to suit fascist idiots like John Howard (Australian Prime Minister 1996-2007) more than they do the good people of Rising Tide, and so it goes, 

What happened next some people from within Rising Tide were instrumental in the Camp for Climate Action from 2006 onwards.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 16, 1971 – “The changing chemistry of the oceans.”

August 16 1984 – “Why are they lying to our children?” – what a 40 year old propaganda campaign can tell us about today (and tomorrow’s) cultural battles. #Climate #CorporatePropaganda

August 16, 2000 – No future for the Sydney Futures Exchange

August 16, 2002 – “Oil Lobby Urges Bush to Keep Climate Change Off the Table at Earth Summit

August 16, 2010 – Polar Bears going through the motions

August 16, 2012 – Tony Windsor calls Tony Abbott an “absolute disgrace” on carbon tax/climate

Categories
Australia

August 16, 1976 – Energy shortages will be pleasant

Twenty five years ago, on this day, August 16th, 1976,

16 August 1976 – Energy expert shortage pleasant in the Melbourne Age

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 331ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that there had been a big oil shock in 1973-74 where oil prices had quadrupled, thanks to an Arab embargo of exports to countries that had supported Israel in the Yom Kippur War, and doubtless within this, the oil companies were finding ways to push up their prices, a nice little ancillary benefit.

The specific context was The oil shock had focused the mind on energy shortages, and here we see someone suggesting that if energy were less plentiful and more expensive, it might not automatically be a bad thing. This should be read against the context of E. F. Schumacher, “Small is Beautiful,” the back-to-the-land movement, and all the rest of it with carbon dioxide build up just creeping in around the edges now just starting to be that thing that gets mentioned.

What I think we can learn from this is that there were debates around how much energy we should use. Those debates were sidelined then, they’re being sidelined now. Nothing really changes, because we are led by neurotic narcissists who need power to bolster their self-image (and to get rich, obvs), and they tell themselves stories about the public good on some occasions, or not on others. 

What happened next – debates around sufficiency, degrowth etc continue to be ignored, scoffed at etc.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 16, 1971 – “The changing chemistry of the oceans.”

August 16 1984 – “Why are they lying to our children?” – what a 40 year old propaganda campaign can tell us about today (and tomorrow’s) cultural battles. #Climate #CorporatePropaganda

August 16, 2000 – No future for the Sydney Futures Exchange

August 16, 2002 – “Oil Lobby Urges Bush to Keep Climate Change Off the Table at Earth Summit

August 16, 2010 – Polar Bears going through the motions

August 16, 2012 – Tony Windsor calls Tony Abbott an “absolute disgrace” on carbon tax/climate

Categories
Propaganda

Daily Mail climate propaganda – from ‘Gish gallops’ to “Littlejohning”

Several heatwaves ago, in late June, I wrote a piece called

The Daily Hate Mail: examining the best climate denial they can do these days.

I also intended to populate “the Daily Mail – how it works” page, but didn’t. There is now, however, a bit of content there. (Also, a link to a long-read by Andy Beckett).

Anyway, I am back for more with some comments (not really at the level of analysis, because life is short) about Richard Littlejohn’s latest contribution to world wisdom – “How eco zealots are to blame for Burn Baby Burnham Britain…”

At the end, I propose a new verb.

The Littlejohn piece is fascinating not for what it says and invokes (more of that momentarily) but for what it DOESN’T. In a full page column Littlejohn manages to avoid using either the phrase “carbon dioxide” or even “climate,” while purporting to offer readers new insights into what is going wrong with the UK’s ecosystems. It’s quite an achievement, and gives us this new tile – “ignore the science.”

For the rest of it, it’s the usual mix of gish galloping (throwing out so many whatabouteries that no response can be given), (en)forced jocularity and bonhomie, appeals to “common sense”, dogwhistles to World War Two (“guilty men“) and so on. I do think the Mail could save a lot of money and just get an AI bot to churn out these columns in the Littlejohn “style.”

There’s endless references to “eco-zealots”, “dysfunctional bureaucracies staffed exclusively by urban, green zealots in Birkenstock sandals”, “mile upon mile of monstrous pylons”, “carpeting valuable farmland with Chinese-made solar panels which are utterly useless when the sun don’t shine”, “rewilding fanatics”, and, of course “loony left councils.”

Some “funny” hyperbole is given to grateful readers.”

“It can only be a matter of time, before this madcap policy extends to those remaining recreation grounds and sports fields which haven’t been sold off to developers for housing.

How long before they get round to cricket pitches? If Beefy Botham was bowling from the Pavilion End at Lord’s these days, he’d have to fight his way through thickets of weeds and long grass, taking extra care not to run into one of the goats hired to maintain the outfield.”

Oh, that one is a thigh-slapper. Huzzah!

So, finally, the promised proposed verb.

To littlejohn, v. To spew out vituperation, anecdotes and poorly sourced factoids while avoiding the central underlying causes of the problems you purport to address, and then invoking an “obvious” solution full of its own problems.

For other Daily Mail techniques (not a complete list yet!) see here.

UPDATE – this is nice from Another Angry Voice

Another Angry Voice

2d ·

“Rewilding link to record wildfires” blares the front page Daily Mail headline.

Even if your scepticism alarm isn’t triggered by the fact it’s the Daily Mail, anyone who knows anything about rewilding is sure to wonder how the Daily Mail has reached such a conclusion.

One of the main objectives of rewilding is restoration of land and waterways to retain more water.

Stuff like reintroduction of beavers to build dams and pools; restoring wetlands; and reintroducing woodland in upland areas to retain more water and prevent flash flooding.

It’s hard to see how a policy of re-wetting the British landscape and slowing water runoff, could lead to more wildfires … unless … the Daily Mail are being deliberately misleading.

The article cites three sources to back up their lurid headline that blames “rewilding” for the record number of wildfires this year (rather than record high temperatures and record low rainfall).

🧐 Country Land and Business Association – a landowner lobbying group

🧐 The Countryside Alliance – a farmer’s lobbying group

🧐 Ian Botham – “the lazy lord”

Not a single one of these cited sources actually makes the claim that “rewilding” is to blame for the wildfires.

What they all complain about is the ban on “controlled burning” of the hundreds of thousands of acres of British uplands that are used (wasted) as grouse hunting moors.

The CLBA spokesperson criticises government ministers for making it “harder for land managers to carry out … controlled burning”.

The Countryside Alliance complain that the government has “more than trebled the area over which the controlled burning of vegetation is effectively banned in our uplands”.

And Ian “lazy lord” Botham accuses DEFRA of “reckless incompetence” over the restrictions on burning off heather.

The policy of restricting moorland burns has nothing to do with “rewilding”. If we actually listen to what rewilders say (like the Daily Mail studiously refused to) they’d argue that grouse moors should be replaced with upland forests. Not pine forestry monocultures either. Proper British forests, populated by native species. The kind of upland rainforests that existed before our ancestors burned them off and created the barren moorlands that exist today.

Actual rewilders say that we should replace grouse moors with temperate rainforest to retain more water, and the government has restricted the amount of grouse moorland that can be burned off, and the Daily Mail is pretending that the two things are the same.

It’s a convenient fiction to pretend that “rewilders” who say the barren uplands need to be restored to temperate rainforest, are responsible for wildfires on the barren upland grouse moors this summer.

It’s obvious that organisations like the CLBA and the Countryside Alliance, who represent the interests of the British grouse hunting industry, are up in arms about government restrictions on their practice of burning off swathes of moorland every year, but they’d be even more opposed to the idea that grouse moors should be replaced with the kind of natural temperate rainforest that existed before humans destroyed them.

They want to keep the moors barren, so rich toffs can go up and shoot birds for fun, and if they can get the Daily mail to blame the wildfires on people who say the barren grouse moors should be restored to temperate rainforest, good for them, right?

Ian Botham is a game shooter and owns a grouse moor in North Yorkshire. A massive conflict of interests that the Daily Mail “forgot” to mention in their article.